CITY OF CHARLEVOIX

BOARD OF APPEALS

Minutes

August 18, 2004

Coast Guard Training Room

7:00 P.M.

A) CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Withrow at 7:00 P.M.

B) ROLL CALL

Members Present: Withrow, Horton, Nuttle, Cross, Anderson, Miller and Eveleigh

Members Excused: None

Staff Present: D.Manore

C) DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATES

Mrs. Miller was designated as an alternate.

D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Miller Supported by Cross

To approve the Minutes of May 19, 2004 as submitted.

Ayes: Cross, Withrow, Nuttle, Horton, Anderson, Miller

Nays: None

Motion Carried

E) APPROVAL OF AGENDA

The Agenda was approved as presented

F) INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

None

G) ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Stilson Case #04-14ZBA – 212 Cherry

Mr. Gregg Bryan was present representing the Stilsons. Staff explained that Mr. Bryan has requested that his application be modified, which would eliminate the requested variances for lot 19 and only require a variance in lot area for the parcel containing lots 20 & 21.

Staff indicated that correspondence was received after the the staff packets being mailed. The letter was from Henry & Patricia Marwin of 805 E. Dixon, Charlevoix. The Marwin’s expressed concern that this request would change the character of the area.

(see file 04-14ZBA).

Mr. Bryan stated there are three (3) lots which are the typical 60’ wide lots. He stated that they were originally going to create two (2) conforming lots out of three (3) nonconforming lots. When the survey was done, it was determined that Mercer runs through lots 20 & 21. He stated that the City Attorney and Zoning Administrator indicated that this square footage could not be counted, even though the City does not own it.

Mr. Graham ha stated that one tax ID number does not make a legal parcel. These are lots of record. We want to take three nonconforming lots and make them into two lots. He pointed out

that by revising their request, they would eliminate all requested variances for lot 19 and make it a conforming lot. The only variance needed would then be in lot area for lots 20 & 21.

Mr. Nuttle asked why the Applicant wants this split. Mr. Bryan stated the Stilson’s would like to sell the vacant lot, as well as lot 19, which contains the house and garage.

Mr. Bryan pointed out that the Applicant could sell lots 20 & 21 separately without making them one (1) lot.

Mr. Anderson asked what the Applicant is now asking for. Staff stated the revised request is only for 1,955.69 sq.ft. in lot area. The requested variances for lot 19 would be eliminated.

Mr. Bryan argued that 207, 211 & 212 Cherry, 208 Elm and 807 Dixon Avenue are all double and triple lots measuring 60’ x 125’ each, which could all be built on individually.

Mr. Withrow pointed out that those individual lots could not be built on without obtaining a variance. He stated that the standards for granting variances have changed in the past two (2) years.

Mr. Bryan suggested that the Applicant has ownership of the Mercer Blvd. square footage until the City makes an eminent domain on the road.

The owner of 807 E. Dixon stated she has three (3) lots and wonders if she has the same problem. She asked if she could split her lots. Staff asked her to contact the City to determine if she could split her property.

Mr. Withrow stated that the only variance the Board is considering is for the proposed nonconforming lots made up of 20 & 21. The variance in lot coverage will be for 1,955.69 sq ft, or 16% of lot area. Lot 19 will become a conforming lot. The Board reviewed and revised the proposed findings of fact.

FINDINGS OF FACT: (Revised)

1. The Board finds that the property is located at 212 Cherry Street and is owned by Vic & Donna Stilson.

2. The Board finds that a portion of Mercer Blvd. is located across lots 20 & 21 outside of the dedicated right-of-way for the street as dedicated in the plat of Lindsay Park Addition.

3. The Board finds that the City of Charlevoix has a legitimate right to consider that part of lots 20 & 21 which is covered by Mercer Blvd. as a City street by the fact that it has been historically used for that purpose. (see Exhibit “E”)

4. The Board finds that lot 19 will be conforming. The new lot formed out of 20 & 21 will be nonconforming with approximately a 16% lot area variance.

5. The Board finds that Section 5.306(b) of the Parcel Division Ordinance states: “The lots, parcels, or tracts of land that will result from the division or property transfer shall comply with all requirements of the City of Charlevoix Zoning Ordinance…”.

6. The Board finds that Section 5.33(1) states: “The minimum lot area and width in this zone shall be twelve thousand (12,000) square feet and one hundred (100) feet respectively.”

7. The Board finds that Section 5.33(3) states: “There shall be a side yard of not less than fifteen (15) feet on each side of any dwelling or accessory building…”

8. The Board finds there is an existing house and garage on lot 19 which will be conforming.

9. The proposed revised split would create one (1) nonconforming lot. Lots 20 & 21 would contain 10,044.31sf (12,000 required).

10.The Board finds that the owner’s property within lots 19, 20 & 21 have been occupied and taxed as a single lot (15-052- 169-019-00) containing a single family residence for a considerable amount of time.

11.The Board finds that the parcel has relatively little topographic relief or other physical conditions.

12.The Board finds that a portion of Mercer Blvd. is located across part of lots 20 & 21. No deed or easement have been given to the Applicant.

13.The Board finds that the Applicant could request a rezoning

of his property to R-2 Single Family Residential which would requires the following: Section 5.43(1): “The minimum lot area and width in this zone shall be nine thousand (9,000) square feet and seventy (70) feet respectively...”

The Board agreed that the variance request is for 1,955.69 sq. ft. in lot area for lots 20 & 21.

5.308 LAND CONFIGURATION VARIANCES

The Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance under this Chapter, if all of the following exist:

(1) Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions exist on the parent parcel, including exceptional topographic or physical conditions, that do not generally apply to other lots, parcels, or tracts of land in the City.

The Board finds that there is an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance relating to this property, in that there is a City road that has been placed on this property without a deed restriction or other indication on the title documentation.

(2) The exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions existing on the parent parcel are not the result of any act or omission by the Applicant or his or her predecessors in title.

The Board finds that the Applicant did not create this situation and that it is an unknown taking of the property.

(3) The granting of the variance shall not be injurious or otherwise detrimental to adjoining lots, parcels, or tracts of land or to the general health, safety, and general welfare of the city.

The Board finds that by combining lots 20 & 21, the Applicant is creating a situation which will be more conforming. There is no compelling evidence to indicate the granting of the variances would be detrimental to adjoining parcels.

(4) The resulting lots, parcels, or tracts of land with the variance granted shall be compatible with surrounding lots, parcels, or tracts of land.

The Board finds there are other nonconforming lots in

the area, such as 207 and 211 Elm and 208 Cherry and

807 E. Dixon. It would make this request compatible

with the above mentioned parcels.

(5) The variance granted shall be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parent parcel.

The existing use is a more reasonable use of the parent parcel since it will create a larger parcel.

Motion by Miller Supported by Cross

To grant a variance of 1,955.69 sq. ft. in lot area for lots 20 & 21 in accordance with the findings of facts and based on all the required standards being met for Case #04-14ZBA.

Ayes: Cross, Withrow, Nuttle, Horton, Anderson, Miller

Nays: None

Motion Carried

H) UNFINISHED BUSINESS

None

I) OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

None

J) NEW BUSINESS

None

K) PUBLIC INPUT, NOT RELATED TO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS

None

L) ADJOURNMENT